Except this isn't BS? Please point out where it is. And stop projecting; we can tell you're in love with whatever ultraconservative news outlet you subscribe to (I'm guessing InfoWars or Fox News, but I honestly don't know yet).

Is your mind blown yet? Back a few years ago when I was in college, it was the norm NOT to trust the Media! Everyone had liberal views and were against religion, the idea of Islam was still ignorant/nobody cared. Now Liberal minds have gone full retard, I have seen it for myself and therefore believe it. But you know what never changes? America's stupidity in this golden, spoiling, age. Wannabe American pundits (maybe yourself?) pretend to know what is going on and keep on spamming propaganda swearing on their honor it's the truth. Anyone who has ever ran for president always had a base of losers that had a ready-made list on how they were less than human, making it their life goal to appear relevant. But Trump comes along after years of this bullshit, and got meme'd to victory because he was like a punishment--- an attack on the losers who helped make American politics so shitty. "Make America Great Again!" was the perfect slogan for what people like me were feeling.

I am amazed but not surprised about the insanity fighting against Trump. People swearing to kill themselves if Trump won took the cake for me, prove how pundits and their brainwashing had gone too far.

I gave you my answer. So please spare me your ready-made list of how Trump is less than human, ok?

"You are aware that when you start a new thread when answering someone, it does not show up as a notification, right?" Sorry, but I didn't know it was question. What does that have to do with anything, anyway?

I find it difficult to discern between your rhetorical points and an actual desire to understand what I'm writing. You mix them up between personal attacks. Of course, I'm probably insulting you again. Or maybe putting words into your mouth - something you would never do. Put words into people mouths, I mean. It looks to me you are operating on feelings and emotions. Sigh. I've probably insulted you again. Really, how can we have a civilized conversation when you think I'm trying to insult you all the time? Or at least you say I do. Judging from what you've written I can easily conclude that's it's just a rhetorical device. I don't think I was being insulting, I don't think I was putting words into anyone's mouth.

Your PS is simply opening another can of worms. Who is trolling who, here?

I focused on his tweets because that was the focus of the conversation. Maybe you don't like Trump (and I'm guessing you don't), but I know that Jollyjack doesn't like Trump. Whether you like it or not, that's a personal bias. Other people who expressed themselves in the comments like Trump. That's a personal bias, too. What I think Jollyjack was saying, I'm guessing because I'm not a mind reader, is that there's Objective Truth that Trump has done or said something Wrong. Trump supporters, of course, say Objective Truth tells them Trump is Right. Neither one of them is lying. How can that possibly be?

Do you think you have a monopoly on the Truth? What hubris! You are so perfect that your opinion is all that matters, because it's Right. And there's the Objective Truth that proves it! Hah! Point, set and match!

I don't think either side would recognize Objective Truth (if there is such a thing) if it hit them with a 2 X 4.

You should really try to see things from from another POV. Just for shits and giggles, you know? Try to understand where the other guy is coming from. Try to do a thought experiment about how something that Trump did is actually a Good Thing. Are you capable of stretching your mind that far? Can you answer my questions?

You are aware that when you start a new thread when answering someone, it does not show up as a notification, right? - a question you did not answer earlier.

And telling ones views as the truth, either knowing them to be false, or simply refusing to acknowledge proof that makes those views out to be wrong, is indeed being in the wrong. This goes for everything, not just Trump and anti-Trump sentiments. Factual Truth is simply more important. Critical thinking is just that important now, so everyone needs to be kept up to that standard, regardless of personal opinion.

And yes, facts and proof have a monopoly on truth, as far as I am concerned. I might be swayed by false arguments, but that should not stop me from accepting my own views as wrong if presented with proof of them being so. If objective truth makes it so no one are wrong, then you open the gateway to some truly horrible justifications.

And the last point you make is simply insulting. You insinuate that I hold my views regardless of what happens, or what is done. That I am for or against something/someone on principle alone, and that I am incapable of empathy. Then I present to you, that I have answered your questions, while you have yet to answer any of mine. This far you have claimed to air your thoughts on the issue of objective truth, but have also managed to insinuate small mindedness in those that question or ask for clarifications, while ignoring what have been asked of you. Yet, you feel comfortable to put words in the mouths of others for you to answer, and still claim victory in what you insist on being a casual conversation about a topic.

PS: As for the tweets. He can tweet as many as he like, however since he is the President of the United States, and he uses it to inform about policy, as well as rant about what is on his mind, then there is one side that is unquestionably wrong with it. He bans people. That is essentially censorship, and against the first amendment of the US constitution. It is also an issue if the tweets are factually wrong and supports a single political narrative, since it effectively becomes propaganda that way.

If you've never heard anyone express the opinion that Trump's tweets are clever and witty then you should get out more.

I've heard Scott Adams on his Periscope laud Trump's tweets several times. But that guy's a cartoonist and who can take a cartoonist seriously, right?

Sorry about that, I couldn't resist that straight line.

I didn't know you held such high standards, a quote for the ages, indeed. A bit hyperbolic, but now that you mention it I can see someone collating his tweets into a book sometime in the future.

So, either you're asserting that Trump has been called clever because he's rich with the implication that those who do so are sucking up to him, or that his cleverness is demonstrated by his wealth?

But hey, I think some of Trump's tweets are clever and witty, so now you're factually wrong. See how easy that was? Another cheap shot, but you shouldn't go around talking in such absolutes because you'll be wrong, oh, 99% of the time. (Notice how I didn't say all the time?)

I didn't think I was making arguments, just observations and food for thought. You seem to hold that an opinion is either right or wrong. Sure, it's frequently expressed in those terms but ... is that really true, does it really describe what's going on? It's also said that opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one. I kind of like that one. I think opinions are more like commodities - some are more valuable than others. Why do you hold one person's opinion in higher regard than another? You have friends and relatives, surely there are some you listen to with more respect than others. Why? Because they agree with you? That would be sad.

Didn't understand that this was an answer to the thread below at first, so it begs the question if it was intentional or not, but regardless. Since I believe it is a continuation of the thread below, I need to point it out, because I have a slight OCD about it, that you failed to address jollyjack's request for clarification, and instead places opinions on him that he has not once said that he have. All I can say is that from where I sit, it appears that you are either trolling, or since you mentioned that it is suppose to just be observations and food for thought, that the train of thought you have doesn't catch the signals that are given to you along the track.

It's unfortunate that you choose to interpret what I wrote in this way. I don't believe I put any words in Jollyjack's mouth. If you think otherwise I can only state that such was not my intention and you should re-examine my words.

I did my best to expand on the concept that I introduced, that is, self-filtering. I guess I was not as successful as I had hoped.

I always thought that the objective of every troll was to trigger someone. I was doing as much as I could not to trigger anyone. Believe it or not.

There were signals? That I do not get. If you are trying to communicate ideas with another person doesn't it behoove you to be as plain as you can be so that the person with which you are communicating understands you? They don't necessarily have to agree with you, but they should be able to comprehend what you're saying.

I suppose we can be talking past one another. That was kind of the point of my original post.

Trolls work in many a ways. Talking nonsense, triggering people, occupying people's time as much as possible, ect, ect. All of which they have multiple tricks to pull off. Spotting one is not always an easy task.

And the reason why I ask, is that in your reply to jollyjack, you focus almost entirely on his words about Trumps tweets, while you seem to ignore his point about those cases where there are evidence to support someone's claims. And then instead focusing entirely on arguments on whom one might be more inclined to believe based fully on personal bias. It comes across as heavy handed cherry picking on what to answer.

Does anyone ever get the feeling half the country is living in a different reality? Scott Adams puts it like this: it's as if we're watching two different movies. The polarization, though, is just crazy. It gets us at each others throats, and, call me a conspiracy theorist if you want, divide and rule. This is a tactic used by elites for millennia. I swear we're all a bunch of chumps being played.

Some days I think Trump is part of it and other times I think he's a reaction to it. I think he's a net positive, but the main thing I like about him is how he ripped the MSM a new one. Those bastards have been lying to us for decades - if not longer - and they're finally getting their comeuppance. It's funny though; before Trump liberals were so concerned about the concentration of MSM in the hands of a couple few corporations and now whenever Trump tweets they rush to the MSM's defense. C'mon, that's hilarious!

One thing for sure, you see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. (Is that a quote?) It's damn hard to step back from your biases (because everyone is biased) and try to look at things from a different perspective.

I guess I didn't express myself very well. I don't give a shit about their biases. As I said, everyone's biased, that's a given.

They lie.

They do not tell the truth about events. They do not report on important events that do not fit whatever narrative they're pushing. This has nothing to do with Trump since they have been doing this long before Trump came onto the the scene. Now, at least to everyone except the never Trumpers, it's become pretty obvious. Did you believe them when they reported that Trump pissed on the bed that Obama slept on? Maybe not, but you wanted to believe it, didn't you?

I posit to you that it's impossible to listen to Trump unfiltered since you yourself are doing the filtering! You see what you want to see, and hear what you want to hear.

BTW, yeah, I think Obama was a tool, but I think Bush 2 was also, and Clinton was in it for the money and girls, period, Bush 1 was a creep for the elite (remember he was a CIA Director, kind of like Putin there?), and then we get to Reagan. Sigh. I think his heart was in the right place. That's the best I can say about him. Carter, another guy whose heart was in the the right place, but who was totally outclassed by his enemies. Ford was a company man. Nixon, shit, now that's a complicated story. Kennedy pissed off the Dulles brothers and got killed, Eisenhower, well, he didn't start any wars. Truman was the SOB that A-Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki when he didn't have to. FDR. What a complete and utter piece of shit. Took the Depression and just ran with it. In other words, made it a lot worse. At the same time egging the the Japanese on. Hoover, another guy who had his heart in the right place, but didn't know what the fuck he was doing. Coolidge, my hero. Didn't do a damn thing. Harding, ended a depression before it began. I have no idea why historians hate him so much. Wilson was a scum bag. He was racist bigot who lied us into WW I. Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive. Ugh. McKinley, except for the Spanish-American War, not too bad. I don't know much about McKinley. to be honest. I really like Grover Cleveland, and I really hate Lincoln. And I'm from NJ, so don't think it's southern pride or anything. The man was ... awful. Just awful.

I put that overview of my opinion of US presidents of the 20th century (and 2 of the 19th) to give you some perspective of where I'm coming from.

So you read one of Trump's tweets and think it's dumb and stupid, obviously the product of an inferior mind. Somebody else reads the same tweet and thinks it clever and witty, and wishes they could write tweets like that. Can we agree that that happens? You know it does because half the country despises Trump and the other half adores him. That's their main filter.

You are going to see something entirely different than what a Trump supporter sees - and you are both looking at the same thing. How does that happen? Is one of you so much more discerning than the other? I don't think so. There's people with big IQs on both sides of the fence.

It probably breaks down closer to thirds, where you can add in those who are ambivalent towards him. Give or take. I'm kind of like that. Don't get me wrong, I'm rooting for him. I root for him simply because if he does well we all do well (and when I say well, I mean well for the country as a whole, not just the elite). So to me he's a mixed bag. For one thing, I would have never hired Jeff Sessions. That was a bone headed move, but I guess he had his reasons. Political payoff. Sessions was an early supporter.

"So you read one of Trump's tweets and think it's dumb and stupid, obviously the product of an inferior mind. Somebody else reads the same tweet and thinks it clever and witty, and wishes they could write tweets like that. Can we agree that that happens?"

No. No one has said Trump's tweets are clever or witty. Ever. He's been credited many times as being clever because he's rich, never because he's given a quote for the ages.

Your argument sounds as though you're saying everyone's opinion is irrelevant/wrong, regardless of how much information and evidence is on hand to support it.

Ya, the president is an obnoxious loudmouth but, unlike the rest of the republicans, at least he has a spine. Look at them run around like headless chickens over ludicrously false charges against Kavanaugh. I feel bad for the people that voted for these losers.

I’m just completely over politics. They are a shambles everywhere at the moment. No politician can properly lead at the moment, so they spend most of their effort trying to remain in power and fighting their own government.

Or that’s how it feels in Australia. For those who do not pay attention to Australia, we’ve had 5 PMs in 10 years.

To any and all people still trying to defend Trump, here's a reality check for you. The man LITERALLY almost started WWIII with a single tweet, no really, true story!www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKEqBw…So there you have it people. You're all supporting a psychopathic lunatic of a moron who doesn't know when to shut the fuck up.

I cant decide if Trump is a compulsive liar, or if he really believes all the bulls**t he says. Either way, he should be under a doctor's care and in a nice, comfy place where he can't hurt himself, or millions of innocent people.

Frankly, I personally do agree on the point that a vast majority of NATO really needs to increase their spending. Part of the requirements to be in NATO is to have 2% of the GDP spent on defense since the mid-2000s. Granted, there was the whole disaster with the Great Recession, but we're nearing on 15 years since that was put into place, and last I checked, the only nations doing so are the US, UK, Poland (fell to 1.99% for a bit due to faster than expected growth), Estonia, and Greece, with percentage spending having often gone down in other 24 over the course. Said nations are also begging for further extensions. It's frankly reaching the point I'm thinking that the worst offenders should steadily be kicked out. Seriously, there's three (Spain, Belgium, and Luxembourg) all running less than 1%, and a good chunk of the rest floating closer to 1% than 2% (ex. Germany at about 1.24%)

Oh, I'd never sing May's praises, but Trump's "genius plan" for Brexit was to sue the EU. For what, exactly, no one is quite sure, because no agreements have been broken. Unsurprisingly, May did not take the advice.

I recommend you look up the impeachment of Bill Clinton because Impeachment doesn't mean removal from office. It simply means formal accusation. When the House Impeaches an officeholder it is up to the Senate to hold an investigation and decide whether the President should be removed from office. When House Republicans impeached Bill Clinton it didn't go far in the Senate, not even manySenate Republicans were onboard with it. What happened was the Democratic base rallied around Clinton and Democrats won seats in 1998 which was remarkable considering the Presidents party does worse in midterms especially their second one. Unless something huge comes up an impeachment attempt will likely go nowhere and only strengthen Trump politically.

I was involuntarily retired in 2016 and spent the next 2 years looking for contract work in the aerospace industry. A couple of months after Trumps tax cuts passed, I had more job offers than I knew what to do with. (I'm an aeronautical engineer, BTW). From my perspective, everything Trump's done (with one glaring exception) has benefited the economy. At least in so far as I'm affected. The one thing Trump's done that I dislike is the massive overall increases in government spending. That spending has the long term potential to wreck this country and is the one thing I fear above all else.

As far as "tax cuts = good". If you're serious about that question look up Art Laffer and the "Laffer Curve". It doesn't really matter who pays taxes, given that economies are integrated, what affects one person affects all.

So, if your still reading this, here's another point. When a corporation gets taxed at a higher rate, do you think the super rich people who own that company suffer? Hell no, they either cut costs (by laying workers off) or raise prices. Either way, the average person suffers the most. As I mentioned earlier, our economy is integrated, no matter who you force to pay taxes, the people actually doing the work are the ones who end up paying for it.

In any case, thanks for taking the time to ask the question. I don't want to cause trouble, or start a flame war. If you don't mind me making comments like this, I'll be happy to respond to any questions or comments. However, if you prefer, I can keep my views to myself. Please let me know.

I was aware of the theory that tax cuts for those at the top would have a trickle down effect, but only because the financial data reported on indicates that it hasn't happened (at least, not yet). It's what I was most curious about: to see if anyone other than high corporate had seen a benefit.